Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-45564-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:03:31 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
	Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>,
	Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] mm: zswap: cleanups
Message-ID: <20240131010331.GB9406@google.com>
References: <20240130014208.565554-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
 <ZbiwW5BJhFeGc2Bd@google.com>
 <20240130122131.GA9406@google.com>
 <20240130155201.GC772725@cmpxchg.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240130155201.GC772725@cmpxchg.org>

On (24/01/30 10:52), Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:21:31PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (24/01/30 08:16), Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > Hey Johannes,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 08:36:36PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > Cleanups and maintenance items that accumulated while reviewing zswap
> > > > patches. Based on akpm/mm-unstable + the UAF fix I sent just now.
> > > 
> > > Patches 1 to 9 LGTM, thanks for the great cleanups!
> > > 
> > > I am less excited about patches 10 to 20 though. Don't get me wrong, I
> > > am all of logically ordering the code. However, it feels like in this
> > > case, we will introduce unnecessary layers in the git history in a lot
> > 
> > This also can complicate cherry-picking of patches to stable, prod, .etc
> 
> I'm sensitive to that argument, because we run our own kernel at Meta
> as well.

Well, it was less of an argument and more of a "let's consider that too".

> But moves are pretty easy. The code doesn't actually change, just the
> line offsets. So patch will mostly work with offset warnings. And if
> not, it's easy to fix up and verify. Refactoring and API restructuring
> (folios e.g.) make it much harder when it comes to this.

If pros of doing it are more significant that cons, then OK.
Either way I'm not against the patches.